midtennchip

Jackdog, either you have a lot of time on your hands or you are on a tear. That was quick!

Thanks for the offer, but I took the time to paste it into Word. The problem was that (at least the first time I tried it) it copied both the words and the website formatting. I did not want to take the time to fix it. I'm a lawyer, so the only thing I'm good at with computers is breaking them (I rely heavily on the Firm's IT guys to bail me out ).

There is one particular issue that you need to look at on the used P232. Make sure the takedown lever is TIGHT! I bought a used one for my wife just over a month ago. During her HCP class with Todd and Dustin, the P232 (in the words of Todd) incurred a "spontaneous disassembly." Basically, she fired the P232 and the slide and spring flew off of the gun. When I called Sig customer service, they had no idea. The guy I bought it from took it back. I bought a new one and the takedown lever was significantly tighter than the first one. After more research on the P232, there have been several reports of this problem. My wife loves the gun, but I'll have to keep checking on the takedown lever. It's a good shooter, handles very well, and is great for leftys (like my wife).

Take your time. I'd love to read the first story, but the Lights Out story is in PDF format, so you don't have to be online the whole time. If someone has a copy of the first story in Word or PDF, I'd love to have it. Lights Out is a very good story with a lot of good ideas in it. I am trying to put together a "reference guide" as I go through Lights Out to point to the good ideas (like the convoy procedures on page 289 of the PDF). More stories are always good!

AB, that is a good question. Railroad companies often are regulated by the federal government and give rise to different issues than most employers (BTW, the Constitutional issue MIGHT come back up on this type of situation). Unfortunately, I do not know off the top of my head. However, you've got me interested now, so I may do some quick research. If I come up with anything, I'll let you know via PM.

There are a number of SHTF stories available on the net. Here's another good one: http://www.giltweasel.com/stuff/LightsOut-Current.pdf There's also some stories here: http://www.frugalsquirrels.com/friends_links.html

COST - if you sign a one-year agreement, it is current $79/month (taken on a monthly draft). I wasn't able to participate last night, but my observations were that a few guys were in good condition. However, I number of them (and I will add to that number) were not in very good shape. I watched everyone in the class and I think the vast majority of people (regardless of current conditioning) would be able to participate. I suspect if you attend regularly, the conditioning issue would be resolved within a month.

Sorry for the delay. Long day at work. Bathroom video -- the most significant case that I know of is Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways. While that was a "privacy" case, it was under a California state privacy statute (i.e., not a U.S. Constitutional privacy issue). There also were some California constitutional issues, but those are different than U.S. Constitutional issues. Runyon v.McCray -- the plaintiffs sued for discrimination (under a federal nondiscrimination statute) and defendants argued that the federal statute (i.e., "state action") did not apply to them because of their freedom of association. While a Constitutional issue arose in a private party case, the issue was whether the Constitution prevented the application of the federal statute. Generally, when you see a Constitutional issue raised in cases between private parties, it is the law (not the parties' actions) under which the lawsuit is filed that is challenged on Constitutional grounds. It is the application of the law ("state action") that is subject to a Constitutional challenge. In relation to the original question in this thread, the employee would not have a Constitutional basis on which to challenge the employer's action. The employee might have a tort action (e.g., assault, invasion of privacy, etc.), but not a Constitutional action.

Frontier, I was the guy standing at the back with the long wool coat. I think I'll be joining the class later this week (maybe Wednesday). Try the drive to Cool Springs again. The traffic was considerably worse today than most other days. Which guy were you?

Abominable, the "rumor" gets started in every law school Constitutional Law class in the country (including mine). The only Constitutional Amendment that prohibits purely private action is the 13th Amendment. You can review the first sentence of Section 21.1 of the treatise linked below. You can also review the case citations at the law review article (footnote #3) in the second link below: http://vlex.com/vid/453379 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1118532 For a quick and dirty summary of the Constitutional analysis issues, the following link is also excellent: http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/constitutionallaw/section5.php Second, I do practice employment law. A few of my clients have to conduct searches from time to time. The employers are NOT limited by Constitutional issues. They could be subject to assault or trespass actions for some searches, but the Constitution does not prohibit any searches by a private employer. An employer (absent a contract) can fire you for any reason that is not prohibited by law (e.g., discrimination).

First, don't confuse a Constitutional right with private employer issues. Constitutional rights apply to government actions, not private party actions. If your employer is not a government entity, the 2nd Amendment doesn't come into play. Second, just because the gun is contained within your personal property does not mean it is not on the employer's property. If you carry the gun in your pocket, it's contained in your property as well, but I don't think you would argue that the enployer doesn't have the right to prohibit that. Most of the prior comments are correct. The employer could not forcibly search your car without the potential for a lawsuit (although they would argue that you consented to any search because you parked there after being notified that vehicles are subject to search). It is up to you whether you risk you job over it. Will they actually search? You would know better than any of us.

The Secure Home by Joel Skousen http://www.amazon.com/Secure-Home-Joel-Skousen/dp/1568610556/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230691209&sr=8-3 Great reference manual for self-sufficient homes.

The website is www.midsouthkravmaga.com. The Nashville classes are held at the Jewish Community Center (off Hwy. 70 close to Bellevue) and the Cool Springs YMCA.

I got the drag bag below. No intent to drag it anywhere, but it is a great range bag for my rifles. If anyone is interested, I am VERY impressed with initial quality. Much heavier than I expected from a cheap bag. http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MOLLE183-7.html

Is anyone taking Krav Maga classes? If so, are you taking classes from Midsouth Krav Maga? I am thinking of taking classes in Nashville and just looking for opinions.

Here's two rationales (again, I haven't seen these argued -- YET). 1. Restaurant (or any other business) where it is legal to carry makes you disarm to come into the business. You are attacked on their premises (inside or outside), there could be liability. This one isn't as strong as the next one, since the restaurant/business can argue that you knowingly assumed the risk. However, right now, the restaurant has NO liability at all since they didn't force you to disarm. A change in the current law opens the door (however small the risk). 2. Criminal (i.e., VT, mall shootings, etc.) chooses a business that posts the "no guns" sign because he believes there is less likelihood of resistance. Apparently, this is what is showing up on the latest studies (see link below). So, if Restaurant A has a sign and Restaurant B does not have one, theoretically, Restaurant A has chosen to put its customers at more risk than Restaurant B. Even someone without an HCP could sue under this theory. But, right now, the restaurant has no liability because it couldn't allow guns, even if it wanted to. http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/When-Seconds-Count-Stopping-Active-Killers/_yls0jTxAkK8QJR1NKbePA.cspx From the story: "The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks. . . Now some tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers." Currently, both of these examples are remote possibilities. But, twenty years ago, we didn't think someone could sue (much less win) for coffee being too hot. If allowing HCP holders to carry on your premises almost assures you that your restaurant/business will NOT be the sight of a shooting, you may eventually have lawsuits filed on this basis if you do put up the signs and a shooting occurs. But again, there's no liability for a restaurant (serving alcohol) with the current law. In fact, the current 39-17-1359( specifically states that the law allowing the posting does NOT "alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property."

Maybe this has been discussed previously, but keep in mind that the Tennessee Restaurant Association is against any bill that would allow HCP holders to carry where alcohol is served. http://www.thetra.com/associations/4860/files/legislativereport.pdf http://www.coltcco.com/?p=194 From what I hear from some lobbyists I know, there is a general liability insurance issue behind SOME of this stance. Right now, the alcohol serving restaurants do not have to worry about liability for gun-related incidents since it is illegal to have one in such restaurants. Although a restaurant could post the "no guns" notice on the door, they would still lose some liability protection if the law is changed. In addition, they may have a new liability issue (which has, to my knowledge, never been argued, but it IS coming) of being sued for the "no guns" policy when an HCP holder is injured or killed in their parking lot. Some of the new studies are saying that "no gun" zones actually increase the likelihood of criminal violence, so someone is going to argue that one day. However, if it is illegal to carry in a particular restaurant, that restaurant is immune to such a suit. Hence, among other reasons, they are fighting any law that would make it legal.

We have numerous cases of Alpine Aire and Mountain House long term food, but I constantly buy the 8 to 12 can boxes of vegetables and fruits available at Costco. I have at least 50 cans of each of the following at any one time (baked beans, corn, green beans, Chef Boyardee, oranges, pineapple, mixed vegetables). The price is slightly less than the grocery store price (i.e., about $.80/can for Del Monte), but they come in easy to store boxes. It makes writing the expiration dates on the boxes for rotation much easier. It also will provide some "regular food" to go with the freezed dried stuff to make life a little easier (especially with young kids). There's another decent place to buy long term storage foods at the link below: http://www.shelfreliance.com/ If anyone is interested, you can buy food grade 55-gallon water drums from Nashville Barrel (located in Fairview) for about $65 each. That sounds high, but every other drum I've seen is used. From the people I've talked to, used drums are not ideal for drinking water. But, that's just what I've heard.

Targetsportsinc.com is CDNN, and yes, I've purchased several guns from them. IMHO, they are the best online dealer around. Their prices on new guns are second to none and generally they only charge $15 to ship a gun. Do a like internet research on CDNN and I think you'll find all you need to know.

Hopefully, after a little research, you have noticed that the video of the "Representative" is a hoax. There is no " John Haller" in the House and the Representative for the 12th district of Pennsylvania is none other than John Murtha (and that's not Murtha in the video). Also notice that the C-SPAN logo is wrong.

I agree totally. Personally, if I can't carry in a particular restaurant, I am glad to see them when uniformed LEOs (carrying their weapons) come in. At least someone (other than a BG) is armed in the place. I'd rather have them armed than nobody armed.

I think that distinction goes to the "discharging duties" analysis. But, why the legislature did it this way, who knows??????

I'll take lucky, then. Especially since I was sending back a gun I bought for my wife that (in the words of Todd@CIS) experienced a "spontaneous disassembly" of her Sig P232 during her HCP class. The problem cost me about $35 less than it should have thanks to the idiot clerk.

I haven't mentioned it, but you bring up a good point. I do think this issue is often addressed in department policy. That is, the department's policies go a long way in any determination (legal or otherwise) of what "discharging duties" means.

OhShoot, I will not argue with you since I have NO knowledge of this other than my shipment about 2 weeks ago. There is more than one policy on the FedEx site, but on that link, it does say the policy was revised 11/3/08. I have no idea if that policy only applies to Freight, but it does say that individuals can ship to FFLs in that policy. Again, I could have just been lucky. I fully expected to pay for Priority Overnight when I went into the office. But, the clerk put a "firearms" sticker on the package and it was delivered, so take it for whatever that's worth.